What does the 1st Amendment say about the press?

 "The amendment as adopted in 1791 reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."   Wiki

-------------------

For those who may not have noticed, the federal government has three co-equal and mutually independent branches:  Executive, Legislative and Judicial.  President Trump is not a member of the Congress, nor is he the Congress.  He clearly has no control over anything the Congress does.

Therefore the 1st Amendment's restriction does not apply to the president and he has made no effort to restrict the operations of the press.

Yes, he is a buffoon, but his utterances concerning the press are not a violation of the 1st Amedment.  pl  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Comments

[Seamus Padraig]

And doesn't the president have the same First Amendment right of free speech as the rest of us? Isn't he allowed to express his opinions? Or does he give away his First Amendment rights when he's sworn in?

[Morongobill]

And no where do the words "politically correct" appear. If the people feel that he is too crude, they can always go to the polls and take out their displeasure.

Or go to Twitter ;-)

[a]

I agree with your wife
he is unfit to lead this great country
now what?

[turcopolier]

a
You seem to think that because I insist on the exact meaning of the constitution that I am his follower. I am not. My wife and I share the opinion that he is unfit for office. We also very much wish to see him dealt with on a constitutional basis. pl

[dilbert dogbert]

As the media are private businesses, the administration has ways to make them take notice of the displeasure of the president.

[turcopolier]

dilbert Dogbert

So long as Trump does not take legal actin to suppress the press, you and others who want a piece of him on that basis have nothing to work with. I know a lot about the press and media businesses. I have been excluded from the media run public square by these "businesses" and their political allies. This was long before the emergence of DJT. pl

[divadab]

Democratic and Republican Parties are also private entities. Private entities not contemplated in the Constitution. How is it that two private corporations control the Presidential debates, excluding views other than those they agree are acceptable to their sponsors and controllers? In this the media is complicit, controlled by the same entities that control the political parties.

The systematic corruption of the federal political machine has reached a point where it's even apparent to the rubes. People are so desperate for relief that they reject the bs messaging and SO now we have President Trump as a result, who actually tells the truth occasionally. ("of course the Clintons came to my daughter's wedding - I gave a million dollars to their foundation").

It's sickening that we are ruled by the most corrupt and venal, who lie as a matter of habit and sell their sacred oaths to the highest bidder.

[Castellio]

Complicit is far too gentle a description of the role of the media. I would suggest: "In this the media is active and aggressive, controlled by the same entities that control the political parties."

However, the issues they support are not simply about profit, very much about foreign policy (Israel) and domestic legislation (corporate special privileges). They got everything they wanted from the Clinton 1, Obama, and Clinton 2 had promised them everything forward.

Trump had not promised them everything they wanted going forward, which is a major reason why so many decided he'd be a better choice.

[LondonBob]

http://bigleaguepolitics.com/owning-news-140-characters/

A lot of folks still don't see the method in Trump's 'madness'. Misdirection.

[dilbert dogbert]

The above was a simple statement that the regulatory powers of the administration can be used as a weapon. Administrations have constitutional powers as well as those given by congress and the courts.

[David E. Solomon]

Colonel Lang,

For what my opinion is worth, I fully concur with you and your wife.

I don't understand the ins an outs of a constitutional approach to dealing with his removal.

How about a posting on just how that could be accomplished.

I am not being facetious. I would really love to read your thoughts on the topic.

Regards,

David

[turcopolier]

David E. Solomon

Not facetious? the 25ty Amendment or impeachment. Work it out for yourself. I didn't say it would be possible short of the 2020 election.. pl

[turcopolier]

dilbert Dogbert

of course administrations have illegal powers hat can be used. And of course you are a gutless bastard if you don't resist them pl

[Bill Herschel]

I think Trump himself is wrestling with the idea of how to deal with a free press. It's when it comes to war that a "free" press tends to disappear. How can this guy possibly not want to start a war? He's painted himself in a corner on legislation, because the 50 vote rule only goes for budget reconciliation. War has got to be the only way out. North Korea? Problem is, Israel and Saudi Arabia could care less about NK. Iran? A very, very tough nut to crack and one that may not fly in Congress, although with the right false flag, you can do anything. Does he have something left besides war? I don't think so.

[turcopolier]

Bill Herschel

The senate can change to a 50 vote rule for everything. pl

[English Outsider]

a" - You state that Trump is "unfit to lead this great country." Probably. You've had no one fit for that since Kennedy. Even on Kennedy there were many Americans who thought him unsound but he certainly had the presence and the weight for the job. You were never going to get anything like that from what was on offer in your last presidential election.

I should explain that Trump lost this distant outsider after Khan Shaykun. I've been looking at the old posts here and had I paid closer attention to them at the time he might well have lost me earlier. So I'm prejudiced. But:-

- Juncker makes statements that are more oafish than any I've heard quoted from Trump.

- If you want to see boorish vulgarity past anything I've seen from the States then look at some of the videos of the Bundestag in full flow.

- Cameron, with his exceptionally good academic credentials, was often accused of not thinking things through, last minuting, and wasting time on games on his phone instead of getting on with his work. He didn't have ADHD or similar but for all the good he did he might as well have had.

But over here we've got so used to seeing our lot comporting themselves with all the seemliness and attention to duty of apes in a zoo that we're perhaps less conscious of such failings.

The American politicians do as a rule have better manners and more gravitas than the European so I imagine you're expecting more from Trump than we might expect here from our top politicians. Fair enough. Moving away from that consideration there's another.

The programme Trump was elected on was the only programme that offered a way out of the blind alley in which all Western countries now find themselves. With the exception of one or two central European politicians, Trump's recognition of and approach to those problems was unique - just about the first time any of us have heard common sense from a politician for a long time. My personal opinion, an opinion that the Colonel was kind enough to let me obtrude on his site although he himself was always, I think, very dubious indeed about Trump, was that Trump was a long shot but the only one. Maybe, in the short time there is to turn things round, the only one who might pull it off.

Disillusioned though we all for our various reasons might now be, I think that's still the case. He's there, even were he to be got rid off there's no one else with that programme around, you either work with what you've got or you get nothing.

[David E. Solomon]

Colonel Lang,

Well I don't think much of the man, but as long as he doesn't start a nuclear war. I can live with him until the next election cycle. Of course, I will still find myself in a bad place. I could never support another Democrat in the Clinton, Obama mold.

This past election I voted for Jill Stein, knowing full well that she had no chance.

Before election day, I supported and contributed to Bernie Sanders campaign, but now I feel he was not much better than the other Democratic choices.

The potential candidate that I thought had the most chance of actually doing the job well was Jim Webb, and I contributed to his campaign until the bitter end.

Ultimately, I guess he just did not have the stomach for it.

If you ran, I would definitely back you.

Unfortunately, I have the feeling that you would not be any more able to tolerate the bull than Jim Webb would have been.

Am I correct in thinking that to be true?

[VietnamVet]

Colonel,

Donald Trump is one of the oligarchs. He acts like one. I think the President wants to wear down corporate media with continuous school yard bullying. The trouble is the five media moguls are wealthier, smarter and more powerful. Government is subservient to the Davos Elite. He can’t sic the Justice Department on his tormentors without a civil war breaking out. Eric Holder told DOJ and FBI Employees; “Be Strong”. I was in denial until the Ukraine mess restarted the Cold War. If history is any guide, the little people will be crushed by the elephants stomping around.

[TonyL]

Col,

Thank you. I am happy that finally you have come to this conclusion publicly. I think I understood that you might have had this judgment all a long (that's my impression from reading your writing about the election). But being a stateman you are, you were patiently waiting for DJT himself to prove that he is unfit for office.

[Tyler]

The media still hasn't realised that he is suckering them and the Dems into his house of mirrors. People can see the hypocrisy of the Left crying crocodile tears, and it just pushes them to Trump.

Media: Kathy Griffin beheading Trump and him being murdered in Julius Caesar are aok. Scalise's shooter had nothing to do with violence.

Trump: *tweets gif*

Media: omg violence against journalists.

None of this comes as a surprise to anyone who voted for Trump. All I see is a lot of slave mentality along the lines of "You won but do what I say", because all the Left has done the last fifty years is "me such a victim" narratives.

[turcopolier]

TonyL

That is correct. pl

[Gene O]

Not a million, only 100K. And the money came from the Trump Foundation, not from Trump himself.

[Jack]

Considering that our highly concentrated media, owned by a few corporations, now routinely publish known falsity and claim 1st amendment protections for outright propaganda, it is the height of hypocrisy when they complain and agitate against Trump's use of social media to counter them.

Maybe it is time to re-examine the appropriateness of the Fairness Doctrine, and remove the concentration in media power by breaking up the media oligarchy.

[Fred]

Dilbert,

Like Obama did with the IRS? Sauce for the goose it may be but that's a damn poor principle to use to run a Republic.

[steve]

Just for the record, many other contemporary figures have been put in the Caesar role. It is a pretty common thing to do. Plus, if you are familiar with the play, Caesar is definitely not the villain.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/06/the-misplaced-outrage-over-a-trumpian-julius-caesar/530037/

Steve